Many people in the Hebrew roots movement passionately reject the use of names such as "Christ" and "Jesus" and any word or practice that sounds to them as
though it has a Greek rather than Hebrew origin. To them, anyone who uses any form of "Greek" name or practice must surely be wrapped up in worship of the
sun god rather than of Yahweh and the Messiah of whom the Torah and prophets speak.

They offer a large variety of evidence to "prove" this, such as:

- Greeks, not followers of the Messiah, called him Christ(os) (Michael Rood, Jeremia Gordon)

- Greeks called all their gods christos, so Christ must not be used as a title for the Messiah (Michael Rood, Jeremia Gordon)

- Greeks, not Hebrews, first substituted the word "Lord" for "Yahweh"

- Zeus (a Greek god) was added to the name Yeshua to make the name "Jesus (Iesous in Greek); therefore following Jesus is the same as following the sun-god

- Greek name endings with sus, seus, and sous (which are phonetic pronunciations for Zeus) were attached by the Greeks to names and geographical areas as
means to give honor to their supreme deity, Zeus." ( J. C. J. Melford, page 126)

- it is gross error to transliterate Yeshua as Iesous (Jesus), in part because the "J" sound of Jesus does not match the "Y" sound of the Hebrew Yeshua

- "IHS" (a symbol used for Jesus in many churches) comes from the sun god, or is an acrostic with pagan or occultic meaning

- Dutch theologian named Desiderius Erasmus(1466-1536) in the year 1516 introduced the word "Lord" for Yahweh

- The "Name of blasphemy" christ' (Romans 5:6 KJV) ; was first introduced by the devil and "false apostle Paul" in his evil letter to The Romans

- all, or nearly all, of the New Testament was written in Hebrew or Aramaic, not Greek, so the authors could not have used the names Jesus or Christ

- the Vatican must be hiding original Hebrew or Aramaic texts of the New Testament which are older than any Greek texts

- Greek language and belief that practicing the Mosaic law is not mandatory or even beneficial to spiritual growth is a corruption

Some readers readily accept these kinds of claims uncritically, even though the claims often contradict each other. Who was at fault for introducing sun god
worship into the church? Erasmus? The Roman Catholic church? Constantine? The council of Nicea? The false apostle Paul? Unidentified Greeks?

All these assertions have one thing in common- they do not identify actual evidence to back them up. For instance, they do not provide actual quotations from,
and titles of, ancient sources such as historians of the first century. Radical claims such as these call for weighty, verifiable sources and evidence to back them
up. But none is provided.

Here are verifiable facts that address these claims:

EXAMINING CLAIMS ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF "CHRIST" AND "LORD"

1. Hebrews, not Greeks, came up with the name Iesous and used it in place of "Yeshua" . About 150 years BC devout Hebrew men translated the Old
Testament into Greek. This isn't just speculation, You can check this out for yourself. The Greek translation was called the Septuagint (abbreviated as "LXX"
because LXX is the Roman number for 70, which reflected the Hebrew belief that 70 men translated it). The simplest way to verify this is to visit
www.unboundbible.org You can have it print out Joshua 1:1 (or any other verse that mentions Joshua) with the English next to the OT Greek. It is obvious the
Hebrews chose "Iesous" for "Joshua/Yeshua." That was Greek spelling that to them sounded most like the Hebrew "Yeshua," The Greek alphabet does not
have either a "Y" or a "J," nor does it have a "sh" sound, so they could not have spelled it either "Yeshua" or "Jesus." You can also find "Septuagint" in
Webster's dictionary (maybe not a pocket size, but the desk size will have it) because it is so important in understanding the Law and Prophets as well as the
New Testament. The Hebrew world chose to use the word "Christ," not the Greeks This translation was widely in use among Hebrews in the first century, so
many Jews called the Messiah "Christ." Both Hebrew and Gentile followers of Y'shua drew their faith vocabulary and thought from the bilingual Hebrew
world, not from the Gentile Greek world.

2. The "ous" ending on "Jesus/Iesous" was not put there by sun god worshipers or by Greeks. The Hebrews first did it in the LXX, as noted above.
They had to do this because of how the Greek language works. English is a word order language in which nouns and names are always spelled the same, and
you understand what they mean by where they fall in the sentence. It makes a big difference whether you say "Jeff went to the store" or "The store went to
Jeff."

Greek is not that way. Greek doesn't care what order the words are in. Instead, Greek changes how the names are spelled to help you understand what they
mean. This is called "declining" words and giving the nouns "case." You can find definitions of these words in Webster, too. For instance, if the name "Jeff"
was used in ancient (and modern) Greek, it would be spelled different ways depending on their use. A sentence would say "Jeffous (the subject of the sentence)
sent Jeffov (the object of the sentence) to get the book of Jeffou ("Possessive"- Jeff's book)." You'll notice that "Jeff" always has an ending added to it. It has to
have an ending, or the readers wouldn't understand the sentence, because word order means nothing.

The same thing happened with the name Yeshua/Joshua. Hebrews took the root of the name, "Yes" transliterated it to Greek letters "Ies" and added the case
endings so that the name was spelled "Iesous," "Iesou" or "Iesov" depending on its use in the sentence. This wasn't an option. Greek speakers did this with
every name and nouns, whether it was Simon, house, cow, table- whatever. The "ous" (or other word endings) weren't added because they indicated Greek
gods. They were a natural part of talking Greek.

English does not decline nouns, except for the pronoun "he." We say, "He (nominative) drove him (accusative) to the store in his (genitive) car." It wouldn't
make sense to us to instead say "He drove he to the store in he car," because you have to decline the word for it to make any sense. In the same way, Greek had
to decline nouns in order for them to make any sense.

Adding "s" to the end of Christ (or Messiah) was necessary when the words were used by Greek speakers. Nouns in Greek (and some other languages, but not
English) must be "declinable." That means that the last couple letters of the noun change with how they are used in the sentence. When "Christ" or "Messiah"
is used as the subject, it is spelled with an "s" at the end (e.g.: Messias). When the noun is used as a genitive (as in "followers of Messiah") it is spelled with a
"u" at the end (e.g.: Christou). English shortens it to the root, "Christ," because English doesn't decline nouns. Regardless of exactly how different languages
spell it- as Messias, Messiah, Mashiyach, Christ, Christos, Y'shua, Yeshua, Jesus," etc, it is the same name or title. (Rood himself has used a variety of
spellings of names for Messiah and YHWH, some not matching the spellings Gordon uses.)

3. "Zeus" was not added to "Yeshua" to make "Iesous." In fact, "Zeus" is spelled with a Z, and there is no Z in Iesous. The article by J. C. J. Melford, page
126 ... is just plain silly: "It is known that the Greek name endings with sus, seus, and sous (which are phonetic pronunciations for Zeus) were attached by the
Greeks to names and geographical areas as means to give honour to their supreme deity, Zeus." The "s" ending was applied to dogs, roaches, houses, dog piles,
rotten meat- literally all masculine nouns. Giving honor has absolutely nothing to do with this. Plus, names were actually spelled with "u" and "n" endings, too,
depending on the case (as noted above). It is just grammar, not Zeus. But check this out for yourself by looking at any Greek grammar. What Melford says is
just totally ignorant of the Greek language.

4, The Greeks never used the word "Christ" for their gods, or in any sacred context, or as any kind of title of honor at all. The verb form of the word
meant "to rub lightly, spread." It was used for spreading oil after a bath, poison on arrows (both of these are found in Homer), whitewash, paint or cosmetics.
The Dictionary of New Testament Theology Vol. 2 (from which this information is taken) adds, "It is anything but an expression of honor. Where it refers to
people, it even tends towards the disrespectful" (pp. 334-335). For example, the compound word neochristos meant "newly whitewashed" (see Diodorus
Siculus). The Greeks certainly did not choose to use the word for the Hebrew Messiah- nor did the Christians.

On the surface, it may seem odd to some people that such a "secular" word as christos would be used for anointing Messiah, which people see as a very
spiritual use. But the noun Messiah, also has a verb form, messah. Some of the Prophets use the verb in everyday ways- to rub (messah) a shield with oil
(Isaiah 21:5), to paint (messah) a house (Jeremiah 22:14), and apply oil (messah) to a body (Amos 6:6). You can verify that the verb massah is used in these
verses by checking a Hebrew text or Strong's concordance. This shows that the verb form of Messiah is sometimes used in the same nonreligious ways that the
verb form of christos was used by the Greeks. This made christos a good match for translators to use, since they were looking for a Greek root that had both
verb and noun forms which were used in much the same ways as the Hebrew words. Messah was used more often to describe anointing kings, prophets and
priests, but it was clearly used in both secular and religious ways.

5. The Hebrews, not Greek or Christians, chose to use the word "Christ(os)" and "Messiah" interchangeably. The Hebrews themselves translated the
Old Testament into Greek in about 150 B.C. in what is called the Septuagint They say that the High Priest himself chose 72 elders from Judea who were
experienced in the law, beliefs and customs of the Torah and were able to translate from Hebrew to Greek. This means they were fluent in both languages, and
used both Messiah and Christos, Throughout the LXX, "Christ" is used for the Anointed One, such as in Psalm 2:2. You can check this for yourself by looking
it up in the Septuagint online at www.unboundbible.org or in a paper copy at a library.

The Apostle John himself used both words when he wrote, "(Andrew said,) we have found the Messiah, that is the Christ" (John 1:42), and "The woman said,
'I know that Messiah, called Christ, is coming" (John 4:24). John considered "Christ" and "Messiah" to be synonymous, and used Christ when speaking to
Greek speakers, and Messiah when speaking to Hebrew speakers. (This article follows the Gospel's practice of using Messiah and Christ interchangeably, too.)

6. Hebrews roots proponents including Rood also condemn using the word "Lord" for YHWH (often spelled Yahweh). But the Hebrews, not Christians,
introduced "Lord" (Greek- kurios) in the LXX just as it did "Christ." The LXX uses "Lord" (Greek- kurios) for YHWH and "God" for Elohim (eg:
Genesis 3:14, Exodus 3:14)..

7. The only ancient author to suggest that any part of the NT was authored in Aramaic or Hebrew is Papias, and he said only that Matthew was, not
the rest of the NT. Some writers claim that many ancient authors claimed the NT was written in Aramaic, but that is entirely false. I challenge you to find the
name, book title, and chapter of even one ancient author or church leader (other than Papias) that said so. They absolutely do not exist.

8. Many Hebrews of the first century B.C. who strictly observed the Torah spoke and wrote in Greek, not Hebrew. One example of this is the book of
II Maccabees. Although this book is included in the Apocrypha found in Catholic Bibles, those books were written by Hebrews for Hebrews. II Maccabees
records historical events which took place in Israel from 175 to 160 B.C. It is a condensation of a five volume history written by Jason of Cyrene, a strict
observer of Torah written for other strict observers. It records how God's people faced torture and martyrdom rather than break the law of Moses. Yet, the book
was authored in Greek, not Hebrew, and continued to be passed down to Hebrews in Greek. They considered it perfectly acceptable to strict observers of Torah
to use the Greek language. The Greek Septuagint version of the Law and Prophets was used by Hebrews like these.

9. It is entirely imagination to speculate that the Vatican is hiding ancient Hebrew copies of the Gospels. No matter how logical it may seem to you, this
is strictly fantasy until anyone produces a valid copy of such a thing. The fact is that we now have extremely early portions of the Gospels written in Greek, but
absolutely none in Hebrew. The earliest portion is a copy of several verses of the Gospel of Matthew that dates to 60-62 A.D., which is within a few years of
when Matthew authored his Gospel. Besides the physical evidence of the type of material and ink that was used, documents found with it pin down this very
early date.

10. The book of Acts and the epistles were all written in Greek. Almost all the conversations in the book of Acts had to have taken place in Greek, not
Hebrew. Think about it.

Luke, the author of Acts, was a Greek and he addressed it to another Greek, Theophilus (both names are Greek). Saul (Paul) and Luke accordingly used the
Greek form Christos," because the vast majority of their hearers would have understood that, but would not have understood "Messiah," because they did not
know Hebrew.

Acts 6 mentions the large body of Greek-speaking Hebrews in Jerusalem, the heart of Hebrew country (6:1). Phillip preached to the Samaritans, (who hated
Hebrews, their language, religion and temple) and surely used Greek or Aramaic (Acts 8). The Gentile centurion Cornelius, some of his soldiers, and his whole
household could not have understood Hebrew, yet understood Peter preaching- no doubt in Greek (Acts 10).

Paul, Barnabas and others taught the many Greeks who came to faith at Antioch (Acts 11,13). Paul persuaded the Roman proconsul on Cyprus, Sergius Paulus
to believe (Acts 13:6-12). Many Gentiles at Iconium believed Paul, but he barely persuaded the crowds in Lystra (who spoke Lycaonian) not to sacrifice to
them as gods (Acts 14). Acts never mentions a synagogue in most of the cities Paul visited. Paul could not have communicated in Hebrew to his own
coworkers such as Timothy and Titus, who were raised as Greeks. In fact, most of Paul's coworkers had Greek names- Titus, Timothy, Apollos and Dionysius
(names of Greek gods), Eutychus, the seven (Acts 6:6), the teachers at Antioch (Acts 13) and the long list of saints in Romans 16. Some names were Hebrew,
such as Barnabas, which indicates that Luke wasn't trying to expunge everything Hebrew and replace everything with Greek- he was just factually reporting the
prevalence of both Hebrew and especially Greek in the early church.

Paul spoke with the judges and jailer at Philippi, a Roman colony, though they surely did not know Hebrew. Paul's message to the Areopagus in Athens (Acts
17), and his defense when on trial before the Roman proconsul Gallio (Acts 18) were in Greek. The idolmakers in Ephesus (Acts 19) surely didn't riot in
Hebrew. Paul spoke Greek to the Roman commander and centurion who arrested him in the temple (Acts 21:37, 22:25), as did Paul's nephew (23:19-21). Paul
didn't need a translator. Paul made his own defense when on trial before Governors Felix (Acts 24) and Festus (Acts 25-26). Paul surely spoke Greek to the
captain and everyone on the ship on his voyage to Rome (Acts 27) and to the superstitious islanders on Malta (Acts 28). Since Paul spoke Greek to them, he
always had to use "Iesous Christos" with the Greek endings on the name in order to be understood.

11. An Aramaic NT did not have to exist in order for the Greek NT to transliterate "Yeshua" into "Iesous." As I mentioned above, Paul and others
spoke to many groups of people in Greek, using the "declined" word forms in order to be understood. Luke was quoting him.

12. The New Testament sometimes uses a variety of spellings for names. The Greek form "Iesous" is used for Jesus in the NT, and is used for Joshua in the
OT (you can check this in the Septuagint, as I mentioned above.) So every translator who sees "Iesous" in Hebrews has to guess by the context whether it refers
to Jesus or Joshua, as in Hebrews 4. It's a fluke that people commonly translate the Iesous as either Joshua or Jesus. But it is not uncommon to have different
spellings for the same name. For instance, Jude, Judah and Judas are all exactly the same name, and are spelled the same in Greek.. You can check this yourself
by calling up Mat 1:2, 26:47 and Jude 1 in Greek at www.unboundbible.org . Matthew and Matthias are the same Greek name.

Why is the same Greek sometimes transliterated in different ways? It wouldn't have to be. But it saves some explaining- you don't have to tell every child, "no,
Judas the betrayer didn't write a book of the Bible." Sometimes translators chop off the Greek "s" ending (like in Jude, Herod, etc) and other times leave it on
(as in Judas, Jesus).

13. When people translate the Greek New Testament into English (and other languages), why don't the translators convert Greek forms of names like
Iesous into Hebrew forms such as Yeshua? There are a few reasons for this. First, the Greek does not read Yeshua, it reads Iesous. Is it sound translation to
write in sounds that don't actually exist in the Greek original? Second, in conversations recorded in the second half of the book of Acts, such as Paul's
conversations in Ephesus, Philippi, etc, the speakers certainly used the Greek forms of the names (as noted above). To replace words that apostles actually said
with Hebrew forms that they did not use is a stretch that translators think would be inappropriate or misleading.

14. The abbreviation "IHS" does not come from the sun god, and is not an acrostic with pagan or occultic meaning. "IHS" are the first 3 letters of
"Yeshua" when it is transliterated into Greek. The Hebrews, not Greek, chose this spelling (see the Septuagint, Joshua 1). The abbreviation stops at the first
three letters because they are the root of the word. The endings vary- Iesous, Iesov, Iesou, etc.-- depending on the word's place in the sentence, as mentioned
above. Some ancient Christian writings abbreviate names by using the first and last letters of Iesous- IS- in place of the whole name (IHS may also be the first
two, and the last, letters of Iesous). They also abbreviated Theos (God) to "THS" (which is just two letters in Greek).

This is similar to the English practice of using the first initials of our first, middle and last names, such as "JFK." Just as Americans know that "JFK" refers to
Pres. John F. Kennedy, so followers of Iesous knew (and in many cases still know) that IHS refers to Yeshua (Jesus Christ).

We find the practice of abbreviating names in the Old Testament. The OT uses both YH and YHWH. The short version is most common in names like
Jo-shua (Ya-shua; not Yahweh-shua/ Jehoweh-shua. It also appears in its simplest form in Psalm 68:4 "extol him by His name Yah." Elohim, another title for
God, is also used in its shortened form, El, in the Law and the Prophets. People don't wonder what conspiratorial or occult meaning there is in the abbreviation
YH or El, we know it is the name of the Lord, whether full length or shortened. Using IHS or XP follows the Hebrew (not Greek, Masonic or Roman Catholic)
practice of using the shortened YH.
Abbreviating names and titles was well known in the Christian and Roman world as well, especially on coins in which space was very limited. Abbreviations
of Christ's name, such as XP, is also very ancient. Some examples are in the Roman Catacombs, where believers gathered long before any semblance of
Roman Catholicism or Masonry. When you scratch messages and tributes on stone walls, it's a lot easier to abbreviate names than to spell them out in full.
There are many examples of both coins and Christian graffiti from the ancient world. (See pictures below.)

Some names have short and long forms, just as we do in English- Tom, Ths. and Thomas. We don't look for any mystical or occultic meaning if someone
signs his name Tom or Ths. instead of Thomas. One example of a NT name in short and long form is Silvanus.. when he wrote the short form Silas, he wasn't
trying to get across a deep or occultist meaning, he was just abbreviating it. The same is true of IHS and IHSOUS..

When we see abbreviations like "L (heart) G" carved in a pen knife on a tree, we don't wonder what occult or conspiratorial; meaning there may be in the
abbreviation, we just know that it's a lot easier for two lovers to carve 2 letters in bark than 10 or 20. When we sign things with our initials or with our first
name only, such as in letters or email, people don't wonder what pagan meaning there may be in the abbreviation of our names, we just know that those who
read it know who we are. When the church uses abbreviations like IHS and XP, believers don't wonder, "who's IHS or XP" (unless they're really uninformed),
they know who the initials refer to.

(Note: Before the ninth century, all Greek literary works were written in "uncial" script, which looks like capital letters, and are used as capital letters in Greek
texts printed nowadays. After the ninth century, most manuscripts were written in "minuscule" script, which looks like small case letters, and are used as small
case letters in today's Greek texts. But actually, neither uncial nor minuscule script had large and small case- all the letters were the same "case" and they
normally did not put spaces between words. This fact means that the modern day speculation that "IHS" is an acrostic because it is all "capital" letters is false--
they are uncial letters. Nether Greek script had small case and capital letters. Even if you don't know Greek, you can verify this by looking at a reproduction of
an ancient uncial manuscript-- all the letters look like "capital" letters. And if you look at a minuscule manuscript, all the letters look like small case.)

Examples of the first two letters of "Christ" (X,P)
and the Hebrew Tetragrameton (YHWH) inscribed
on first century ossuaries in Jerusalem

examples of names abbreviated on first century
coins

15. In most European languages a J has a Y sound, so "Jesus" sounds like "Yeshua." The "J" is pronounced like a Y in German, Norwegian, Swedish,
Spanish, Slavic, etc. When "Jesus" was first spelled with a J (which was at least as early as Luther's German Bible, 1520) probably every language in Europe
that used a "J" pronounced it like a "Y." The hard "J" sound in English (as in "judge") is a fluke, not the norm. English is derived from European languages,
and America is populated primarily by immigrants from Europe. After moving to America and beginning to learn English, it made sense to them to continue to
spell "Jesus" as it had been for many centuries, rather than make up a foreign spelling with a Y that was unfamiliar to them, and which would lead to
confusion. Many Bibles continued to be printed in Europe and used in both Europe and the Americas, just as today.

German, as one example, could not have used a "Y" because the German alphabet did not have a "Y." (At the end of the 20th century German began to use a Y,
but only in a handful of foreign names and loan words such as Yates and yacht.) German, like Greek, declines nouns, so the spelling of "Jesus" changes with
how it is used in a sentence- Jesus Christus (nominative), Jesu Christi (genitive), etc. If you know classical music and chorales (such as Bach), you may have
recognized this already in songs such as "Jesu (pronounced "ya-su"), Joy of Man's Desiring.".

16. Why does "Yeshua" use a "sh" and Jesus an "s?" Hebrew has one consonant for both S and SH. It looks vaguely like our "W." But when you place a
dot above the left arm, it's pronounced as an S, but if the dot is above the right arm it's pronounced as an SH. But ancient Hebrew manuscripts didn't use the
dots at all, so some pronunciations were up to tradition. Greek, on the other hand, doesn't have an "SH" sound at all, so there is no way to spell Jesus with sh in
the middle using Greek letters.

17. If the main goal is to avoid all association with the morning of the first day of the week, due to the sun god, then why was Yeshua so foolish as to arise
at sunrise on the first day of the week (a Sunday)? The Gospels clearly say that the resurrection was "at dawn" (Matthew 28:10), "just after sunrise" (Mark
16:2; the word helios, or "sun," is used). If resurrection had taken place at the end of the Sabbath just after sundown, nonJews would have argued that He did
not rise on the first day of the week, as He had said. By rising at sunrise, Christ made clear to Jews and Gentiles that he had risen on the third day as He had
prophesied.

Early in the book of Revelation they sing the song of the redemption, the song of the Lamb. It honors the death and resurrection of the Messiah. Would it be
worthy to honor the resurrection and redemption by worshiping on the day of the week on which that took place, just as the completion of creation was
honored by worshiping on the day that took place?

The Law required special worship on Sundays- including the festival of Firstfruits and Feast of Weeks (Leviticus 23:9-21). (The image of the "eighth day" as a
special day -- eg: Leviticus 23:36, 39-- is also a model for the honor given to the first/eighth day of the week by the Resurrection of Christ/Messiah.) The
Apostle notes that the Messiah (Christ) rose on the first day of the week, the day of Firstfruits, to fulfill the intent of that observance (1 Corinthians 15:20-23).
If the main goal is to avoid all association with the sun god, then why did Yahweh require these special worships on the first day of the week, then cause the
Messiah to rise from the dead at Sunrise on the first day of the week?

18 The Roman Catholic Church and Emperor Constantine cannot be blamed to falsely causing Christians to worship on the first day of the week or
used Greek terms such as Christ because these practices were typical in the Christian church hundreds of years before they existed. It is universally
accepted that the RC church began in 1090 when Pope Gregory I became the single authority in the church, and began to require worship in Latin. Before this,
there was no single authority, decisions were made in councils of church leaders, and most of them spoke and worshiped in Greek or other languages besides
Latin. Yet, Roman historian Pliny wrote of how followers of the Messiah worshiped at dawn on the first day of the week in around 100 AD. This was 900
years before the start of the Catholic church... so how could the Catholic Church have forced this on Messiah's followers, since the RC did not exist until 900
years later?

19. Use of Greek language and concepts is a fulfillment, not a corruption, of the Messianic promise. Shortly after the Messiah commanded his followers
to make disciples of all nations, the Lord himself miraculously set the pattern of how this should be done. On the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost), the disciples
spoke of the Messiah to people who lived around the whole Mediterranean and middle eastern world. They were amazed that "each of us hears them in his own
native language... we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues" (Acts 2:8, 11). Since they were visiting the Jerusalem temple to worship,
they presumably knew at least some Hebrew. Nonetheless, the Lord miraculously caused them to hear the Gospel in their own languages, not in Hebrew.

Greek was used by the church because it was used around the world, in much the same way that English is used around the world today. The apostles wrote
the Gospels and epistles in Greek because they knew people around the world could read them without needing it translated first. This tradition of putting
God's Word into the languages of the people continues today, as parts of the New Testament have been translated into around 2,100 languages. God's desire
was to bring the Gospel of forgiveness in the Messiah to all cultures, not to transform all culture into Hebrew culture.

WHY SO MANY MYTHS ABOUT "HEBREW ROOTS?"

Many of the false assertions found in Hebrew roots literature would not be promoted or believed if people had even the barest knowledge of Greek, ancient
history, Hebrew use of the Septuagint, and modern languages. The problem is that people who are not knowledgeable about these things hear myths about
"Christ" and other topics, get excited about these "new" and "little known" tidbits, and repeat them as fact without checking them out. Even worse, some
continue to try to defend the myths after learning the facts we note above.

Many of them readily latch on to whatever radical theory they see, while making no serious effort to verify that "traditional" Christian teachings are, in fact,
factual and true. Some people don't even make an effort to find the reason for the "traditional" view, because they don't want to find it. When I attended a Rood
Awakening seminar, I was amazed at the attitude of most of the participants. When very radical and fantastic claims were made, most were thrilled about the
new ideas, when they should have stepped back and judged them very carefully. (Just as with consumer advertising, the more fantastic the claim is, the less
likely it is to be true.)

Many Hebrew roots followers also make the mistake of assuming that whatever they know about 21 st century English must apply to Greek of 2,000 years
ago. Speculartion about hidden, occultic meanings behind IHS, about "Christ" being a title of Greek gods, and about the "s" at the end of the name "Jesus" fall
into this category. They think that because English does not decline nouns, then Greek must not either (in fact, they know so little about language, this does not
even occur to them).

There is so much speculation floating around on the Internet, people accepting as gospel truth whatever "makes sense" to them, without having or even
seeking basic facts of Greek and the ancient world. What makes this worse is the misguided attitude some people have that everyone who went to seminary or
Bible college to learn about Greek, the Biblical world, the LXX and theology is by nature ignorant and false. They end up "learning" from people who
speculate on the Internet based on what they've "heard" and what feeds their biases instead of on reputable works of scholarship. These aren't arguments about
interpretation, they are plain, basic facts of Greek, the LXX, and the ancient world.
Unfounded speculation gets even worse with conspiracy theories. People speculate that the Vatican is doing everything from hiding a 1st century Hebrew
manuscript of the Gospels to promoting paganism by using the initials IHS. Where is the evidence? There is none. One might as well say that the Vatican is
hiding the original Gospel of John written in he first century because it has a line in it saying that Hillary Clinton or Saddam Hussein is the Messiah. But if they
feel it must be true that the Vatican is hiding it, they believe it. Even worse, to some people the fact that no one has ever seen such a thing is proof that it must
exist. (By the way, I'm not Roman Catholic or Masonic.)

In the end, it is not an important issue whether people pronounce his name Y'shua Messiah or Jesus Christ, because He answers to either whether spoken in
faith. As Scripture says, "without faith it is impossible to please God," not "without learning how to pronounce names in Hebrew and obeying the Mosaic Law
it is impossible to please God."